It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Second Amendment: A Treatise

page: 1
52
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+31 more 
posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Every time there is a tragedy concerning guns, some people pounce on the opportunity to try and limit or outlaw guns. The topic shows up again and again, and a lot of misinformation is spread around by the main stream media, and even places like ATS.

I wish to take a bit of time today, to go over this important part of the Constitution with you.





The Constitution of the United States of America

The founding fathers believed that ALL government was evil, but was necessary to keep man civilized. A necessary evil. The government of the United States was intended to be small, to limit the amount of evil that it could do to the people.

The founding fathers also believed that people had natural rights. These rights were not given to you by the government. These rights were given to you by your creator, or more generally, nature. The document was written to give explicit natural rights that the government may not ever touch. The first draft of the Constitution did not have a Bill of Rights. It was thought, by Madison, that the limiting of government was enough for people to retain their rights.. The Bill of Rights was added two years after the ratification of the Constitution. But some of the framers thought that people would think that the eight rights that passed into the Bill of Rights were the only ones that were valid, and all others would be infringed upon. This led to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments being added, giving people the authority to add any rights that were being infringed upon to the list.

The basic premise was that you are free to do as you wish, when you wish, where you wish, as long as it does not encroach on the rights of others to do the same.

Now that you know a bit about the Constitution, we shall dive straight into the meat of this thread:





the Second Amendment

--A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.--

You hear about it all the time. What is the purpose of this amendment? What does it mean? Who is it talking about?

Throughout the history of man, governments have placed their populace into slavery. One of the first things that a government does is take way the weapons of the citizens. This is done so the people will never be able to stand up to their governments. This allows the governments to place any kind of laws and restrictions on its people, without fear of repercussions. The governments realized that when the people stood up to them, the numbers favored the citizens by a great insurmountable amount. The taking of weaponry put the governments in full control of its peoples.

The founding fathers were great historians. They knew that governments are inherently evil. This amendment was put into place so that the citizens may always protect themselves from the greatest evil . . . the government.


"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson,



"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

- Thomas Jefferson



"I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil."

- George Mason



"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

- James Madison



"To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands."

- James Madison




Second was the protecting of ones self and possessions, either from people who wish to do ill will, or foreign invaders.


"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour."

- George Washington



"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..."

-John Adams



"But it ought always be held prominently in view that the safety of these States and of everything dear to a free people must depend in an eminent degree on the militia."

-James Monroe



"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."

- Richard Henry Lee



"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine



So you see, the Second Amendment was not to protect hunters, or target shooters, or gun collectors. The Second Amendment has one goal in mind. Protection of our freedoms and liberties.




Now we will head into another of the great debates. Who or what is the militia?

I believe that the Second Amendment answers that within it's own text:

--A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.--

It says that in order to have a free state, we need a militia. This militia is the people, and their right to have weapons shall not be infringed.

Yet there are some who still cling to the idea that the second amendment is talking about the Army, or the National Guard, or something else run by the government. The answer to that is an emphatic NO, YOU ARE WRONG!. Why don't we take a look at what the founding fathers had to say, shall we?


"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."

- Alexander Hamilton



"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

- Richard H. Lee



"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them"

- Tench Coxe



"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

-George Mason



"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."

- Richard H. Lee



"The great object is, that every man be armed.... Every one who is able may have a gun."

- Patrick Henry



"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped."

-Alexander Hamilton



"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...

- Tench Coxe



"The burden of the militia duty lies equally upon all persons;"

- Representative Hugh Williamson (NC)



So again I ask . . . who is the militia states in the Second Amendment? You are the militia! I am the militia! If you are a citizen of the United States, it is your job to protect your freedoms.




Another great debate is the type or amount of weaponry allowed. Let's use some common sense here. I have just shown you that we have this right to protect our lives and freedom from the government, hooligans, and foreign invaders. I have also shown that you and I are the militia. We are the last line of defense against those who wish to take our freedom. We are to be the STRONGEST line of defense. Does it make any sense to restrict your strongest line of defense to only a certain type of weapon? Does it make sense to leave your last line of defense with no way to provide for that defense?

Would you send a soldier into the field of battle with only one round? Would you send a soldier into the field of battle with only one magazine? Would you send a soldier into the field of battle with only a pistol? No grenades?

The answer to all of the above should be a resounding NO!

So why would you send the militia into the field of battle so restricted?


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...

- Tench Coxe




But that means children would be able to get guns! Think of the children! How often have we heard that line?


"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

- Richard H. Lee




There is another argument, although weak, that must be settled now. Some people will claim that the Second Amendment is obsolete because we have machine guns and grenades now, instead of muskets and cannon balls.

A right . . . your freedom can NEVER be obsolete. The day protecting your freedoms has become obsolete, is the day that tyranny has won.


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined....

- Patrick Henry



"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

- Noah Webster





I have read many arguments over the last few days talking about statistics of gun crimes, how regulation is okay, and even how guns should be outlawed completely.

Statistics do not matter. The Constitution does not say anything about statistics Even regulation is unconstitutional. Read the text again:

--A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.--

Shall not be infringed.

I should not have to break that down for you. It is quite clear what it says.





Conclusion

In conclusion, I hope that this writing has helped you understand your rights a bit better. I hope that you have learned something. Lastly, I hope that you will stand beside me to protect our freedoms, whether the enemy be foreign or domestic.





edit on 1/12/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: Correcting spelling, grammar, and punctuation




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
If you would like to do some more reading on the Second Amendment, Let me recommend some sites for you.

Founding Fathers Quotes

The American Ideal of 1776

Guncite - Understanding the Second Amendment




edit on 1/12/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Awesome post! S&F...

It won't be until people's guns or their rights to have one are taken away that they will realize how important it is to have one. It will be at that time that they will understand.While I do not condone violence in any way, I absolutely believe the Founders knew what could happen and agree with the right of the people to protect their property, life and liberty against any threat, foreign or domestic.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Don't worry Lemon - we are here to help and we won't allow it to happen.

March 3rd, 2009; Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey


OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.


In 3rd SFG most of the Officers and NCO's were commited to these principles at least in spirit if not actual members of the organization.

I say sleep comfortable in your beds at night - at least for now.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
So well said,

How come they do not want to take away booze, I mean many get drunk and then use the bottle as a weapon.

Or take away cars I know two people personally that their wives tried to kill them with a car.

Or any type of pokey object, people are knifed to death every day but does the News show a big picture of a fully automatic machete, no.

To catch wild pigs you lay out corn, and they come and eat. Then after a few days you put up one fence and feed them. Then after a few days up goes another fence, this happens until you have a corral and can close the gate and slaughter the pigs as you need.
Just give them what they need daily and slowly close in around them.

Are you educated or are you governmentally trained.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I am glad that you all enjoyed reading what I wrote. But it seems I am preaching to the choir, so to speak.

One of the secondary reasons that I made this thread is a repository for the facts surrounding the Second Amendment.

Feel free to bring up the OP, link, it, quote it in any and all discussions relating to the Second Amendment. People should know the truth.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.FreshI am glad that you all enjoyed reading what I wrote. But it seems I am preaching to the choir, so to speak.


I doubt you'll get many hits from those on the opposite end becasue they can not refute the facts in the dicussion with emotion, etc.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
S&F. I'll help your argument.

US code Title 10, subtitle A, part 1, chapter 13 section 311.

www.law.cornell.edu...

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

emphasis mine. Arguably, this does need revision due to the advances in modern medicine, and to revise it to include women in the unorganized militia.

National Guard wasn't created til the Dick Act of 1905.

Normally this shuts down any and all "anti-militia" argument.


Since everything is about compromise, lets compromise.

I'll submit to a NICS background check (what is currently done pre-firearms purchase) for every gun I buy, private sales included. Fee for private sale NICS check will not exceed $10, which is roughly half of what a FFL charges for a transfer. Half takes away the profit and reimburses the FFL for his/her time spent. Eliminate firearm restrictions for those convicted of non-violent felonies. Restrictions for violent felons or extreme misdemeanors of domestic violence (must have involved a non-accidental hospital stay and written affidavits of at least one third party that was present for the incident) are agreed to remain.

I will agree to report for duty to a designated muster station upon notice of a threat to the United States. During this time I will be paid a salary equivalent to that of a regular soldier/sailor of equal rank. Failure to do so without an acceptable and fairly issued waiver will result in stiff penalties and/or a prison sentence.

Weapon proficiency must be demonstrated and on a recurring basis, perhaps once per year. Failure to demonstrate proficiency after the second occurrence will result in government mandated sale of said firearm with a reasonable amount of time alloted to sell said firearm. However this may be avoided IF proficiency is reattained during the grace period.

In exchange for all this, the government agrees to waive restrictions present in the NFA 1934, GCA 1968, and the 1986 machine gun ban, including but not limited to:

Elimination of $200 tax stamp required for purchase of suppressors, short barreled weapons, and fully automatic weapons.

Ability to receive firearms shipped in the mail directly provided the NICS check is completed.

Ability to purchase post-1986 "dealer samples" for fully automatic weaponry

Ability to purchase explosives carried by the average infantry soldier, including but not limited to grenades and claymore antipersonnel mines. This privilege is subject to the Proficiency Clause.

USG agrees to partially subsidize purchases of the more expensive items in a standard infantry kit, such as night vision and body armor. Upon discharge from the militia program the Militiaman (yes I know not PC .|..) agrees to sell back used high-level equipment to another militiaman or back to the USG. Upon discharge rights to own firearms are not restricted provided proficiency levels are maintained. Even the oldest citizen can still serve in the militia in some fashion.

Upon misuse of Militia-related equipment, privileges accorded under this Accord will be hereby suspended upon the first offense with zero tolerance, provided this is proven with witnesses by Militia Command.

US Government gets a last-line of defense that would likely be the largest in the world, and those of us that take the Militia seriously gets the governmental backing, training, and equipment so many of us desperately require/desire. The anti-gunners get their gun registration and proficiency training, the pro-gunners get the teeth ripped out of NFA 34 and GCA 68.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I absolutely agree with your post and the reasoning behind it. Almost all of the founding fathers supported individual ownership of weapons. Hopefully this will give some of the anti-gun liberals on the site a pause, though I doubt it. S&F, well deserved and earned.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by netwarrior
 
I seriously doubt we could ever get such an act passed but I would definitely support it. I would suggest removing the upper age limit altogether, so long as proficiency is demonstrated.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Thing is, (and great thread btw), is that our founding fathers didnt just write this stuff down and base an entire country off of it because the words "sounded right", they did it because at that time, THEY were the ones that had to play the game day in and day out. Those quotes were not just catch phrases to say to a 'cop' when he pulls you over and sees your weapon, they were meant to protect you from those very same "authority" figures. They have NO AUTHORITY, YOU DO, and thats why the second ammendment is there, to remind people of the power they posses.

The government does NOT have ANY rights to infringe on our naturally born rights(as americans), and that(our naturally born rights) includes having the right to life and liberty, and the right to defend those naturally born rights by any means necessary.

So many people think its the other way around, and that is the disturbing part of the equation.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 





So many people think its the other way around, and that is the disturbing part of the equation.


People think this because they are TAUGHT in government schools that our freedoms are granted to us by the government. There was a thread created to day on this very subject.

What is worse is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT thinks this way too!

SINCE WHEN do we need a LAW to grant us the right to enter into Contracts??? Since when do we need a LAW to grant us the RIGHT to eat what food we wish??? SINCE WHEN do we need the permission of the government to GROW food????
Are these not very basic freedoms?

Here is the USDA's and FDA's point of view on our freedom.

In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA.” - Linda Faillace


FDA's Response to FTCLDF Suit

....On April 26, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submitted its response to a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF).....

The agency has long opposed 'freedom of food choice' but its response to the FTCLDF complaint represents FDA's strongest public statement yet on the freedom to obtain and consume the foods of one's choice.

FDA's Views on Freedom of Choice

Here are some of FDA's views expressed in its response on 'freedom of food choice' in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p. 4]

* "It is within HHS's authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well." [p. 6]

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p.17]

* "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]

* "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [p. 26]

* FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health." [p. 27]

* "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [p. 27]



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I am glad the military signed this but any police officer that does is a hypocrite according the full version of number 2

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

notice the part about.....vehicles, papers, or effects

Police commenly do this everyday



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


sad state of affairs we find ourselves in these days, and the governent wonders why people wont obey their every command, our founding fathers told us not to.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lastrebelI am glad the military signed this but any police officer that does is a hypocrite according the full version of number 2

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

notice the part about.....vehicles, papers, or effects

Police commonly do this every day


Please don't misunderstand my post - this is not an organization to which the military in general belong.

I am, and was in my last year of service; many are not but support the movement in spirit in case the organization at some point is designated a subversive organization and they lose their careers.

Our local Sheriff is a member and has a window sticker on his explorer - the official County vehicle. I assure you he is a redneck through and through (that is not an insult where I live rather the opposite actually) but would take issue with the charge that he does a warrantless search every day.

First of all it is not an order from on high it is just a part of his everyday duties.

However, I am supposing that you mean the search they make for their safety incident to any traffic stop?

This is not a warrantless search it is a search incidental to probable cause to detain and question you - that of you breaking the law.

They can only search what is visible in plain sight and should you not consent to a further search the LEO can not intrude further - that is unless you give cues that indicate drunkenness or something that might escalate to a further search of your sobriety or say blood splatters in the back of the vehicle – common after hunting around here – they ask, “What’s the blood from?” The deer I took last week… “Ok, No problem.

If you are refereeing to random road blocks on New Year’s etc., I would say they are only looking for you to produce your license and registration which you must have to legally operate a vehicle. If you do so and show no signs of drunkenness or have nothing in plain view - you have nothing to fear.

I got stopped only once in like the last 15 years first question of course:

"Do you know why I stopped you?" (Meantime has shining the light in the vehicle to see what’s there...for his safety)

Easy, yeah I was speeding, sorry was listening to talk radio and engrossed in the topic....

Next question - "Do you have any weapons on you on or in the car?" Yes, a 1911 under my jacket.

"Please keep your hands on the wheel sir..."

"Do you have your permit on you and may I see your License and Registration Please?' Sure..No problem...

"Please do it slowly for me, where I can see your hands at all times..." Of course...

"I gave him my Military ID since my DL was from another state, my registration, and CCW permit. At no time did he ask me to disarm myself or to see the weapon.

10 Minutes later he comes back and says, "Major, thanks for your service, please watch your speed more closely in the future, this is an area we have had a lot of accidents lately. Thanks for your cooperation."

No warrantless search there...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


They have ways to get around "no search" if you opt out you get to sit on the side of the road for 2 hours waiting for the drug dog to get there. I am biker and since i retired i just travel around the country and get this often. I have had it happen 3 times crossing one state............but again I have had them just ask for my info, be polite and send me on my way......but that leaves the question of why i was pulled over to begin with............which no one asks because that is a great way to get an unneeded ticket.

It is what it is......they see someone with long hair, beard and tattoos and want to "check you out" which is profiling. That flies in the face warrentless search...........if only by the spirit if not the letter



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by lastrebel
reply to post by Golf66
 


They have ways to get around "no search" if you opt out you get to sit on the side of the road for 2 hours waiting for the drug dog to get there. I am biker and since i retired i just travel around the country and get this often. I have had it happen 3 times crossing one state............but again I have had them just ask for my info, be polite and send me on my way......but that leaves the question of why i was pulled over to begin with............which no one asks because that is a great way to get an unneeded ticket.

It is what it is......they see someone with long hair, beard and tattoos and want to "check you out" which is profiling. That flies in the face warrentless search...........if only by the spirit if not the letter
My bold for emphasis.

Actually, I would recommend if that happens again for you to ask him if you are under arrest...

If he says no...You can just say thanks; pack up your stuff and go. If he says yes, you can say on what charge? If he has no answer then ask again until he says no.... You cannot be detained in the way you described to wait for a search dog to come (unless he had some reason to believe - smell or whatever) that you had drugs - which only you know the answer to.

Also, you have to realize that the way you describe yourself could indeed be the profile of someone they are looking for at the time? Not that short haired people in cars don't commit crime but maybe if you got stopped 3 times in one state you matched the description of someone for whom they are searching?

Specifically referencing your point that I made bold: Pro-tip, he knows why you were stopped and he will likely ask you so he can use your admission against you. Don't be afraid of the admission, you have not been Mirandize at that point so it is inadmissible. If he doesn't ask you, you ask him because he is an LEO and anything he says is admissible. If he doesn't have a reason, ask if you are under arrest - if not say thanks and drive off. Nothing he can do about it.

Might be harder for you because of the manner in which you chose to dress, (no one said all choices are easy ones) but if you know your rights and are firm and respectful you should get justice - if not you will get a nice fat settlement eventually.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Gun grabber threads are starting to pop up again.

Wish these dolts would read and learn . . . . deny ignorance.

But one can't debate against the truth.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Doctors kill more Americans than all other homicide methods combined.

Why are American's given placebo drugs by Pharmaceutical's.....you paid for the real drug...why are they giving you placebo's instead? Free money from suckers is a good scam...Federally endorsed. Saves the Federal Government money too.

Why are vaccine makers protected by the Federal Government? You can't sue them for being maimed/killed by their vaccines. You must go thru the US Justice Dept's Vaccine claims process. Hmmm.....odd isn't that?

Guns don't kill Americans. Doctors and our medical mafia do. There's hundreds of Billions to made in killin' Americans.

How can Doctors give patients drugs for "off label use"? Unapproved uses? Why are Class II medical implants being used by Surgeon's in unapproved methods? Some drugs like Flexiril say not to be used for longer than 2 weeks...it's FDA approval letter said no use longer than 2 weeks...killed the rats when used longer than that. So how are doctors allowed to give it to patients for YEARS until they finally die of liver failure?

Guns aren't the problem in America....The Medical Mafia is the problem.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Great post! Star & Flag!

I lean a little left of center on most things, but on this ... I just see otherwise law-abiding citizens being "made into" criminals - because they just happen to like guns that don't meet all the restrictive specifications (magazine size, rifle-stock/pistol-grip, and other such crap).

Some in the media, the Gov, and my friend's/family seem to like to argue about whether anybody "need's" a particular type of weapon.

I disagree with that discussion. Does anybody "need" an SUV? a Mercedes? some gas-guzzling old car? No, but they're still legal - and there no constitutional amendment about the right to own or use such vehicles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for registration, etc. I definitely see the need to track-down a gun's owner, etc.
However, I think citizens should only have to put-up with that, if all this artificial stuff about magazine capacity, pistol-grips, etc. is repealed.

IMH(f)O anyway.

PS: I believe all that, and I'm not even a gun-owner! I just see my friend's becoming "technical" criminals for no good reason.



edit on 2011-3-3 by EnhancedInterrogator because: spelling.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join